It's time to have a look at the numbers again, and assess what the "Low Bonus Strategy" has accomplished. Are Dirty Plufferist Elitists right? Or the Anti-establishmentarian Naysayers? Neither, perhaps?

I will try to exhibit the analysis as simple as possible. There will be 2 tables and a single graph. The first table contains just facts. The second table contains analysis on assumptions that will be stated. The last graph depicts the most important two series from the second table, and concludes.

1) There was no PTO CP candidate on Sep 5 2012
2) PTO/ATO/Other votes are straightforward in CP and Congress elections, but not so in PP elections. For the numbers you see on the table, only votes in top 6 parties at the time were counted (USWP+AMP+Feds+WTP+AFA+iNCi).
3) AFA got 18 congressmen into the congress on Dec 25 2012; but one of them was an agent I planted while I was the Secretary of Homeland Security on November-December 2012. You know her by the alias 'Putri'. I would like to thank her once again for her service to the country.

Analysis of Table 1:

1) ATO has won every CP election
2) ATO has stabilized the loss of ground in congressional elections to 17-19 congressmen, but that is a dangerous number - its close to 1/3 of the total congressmen, and gives the PTOers the chance to block votes that require supermajority, such as impeachment and natural enemy laws.
3) If we do not count the defeat on Dec 15 2012, ATO has succeeded in guaranteeing a partial victory in each PP election; not losing any parties to the PTO beyond AFA.
4) If we do not count the aberration on Oct 5 2012 (due to some groups' hatred of Pfeiffer), it seems like the PTO has been slightly increasing its percentage.

Are the Naysayers right after all? The answer is: not really. We need to move on to the second table.

1) Potential PTO votes are calculated as follows:
- Sep 25 2012 is chosen as the starting date
- Each congressmen gets around 20 citizenship approvals. So after each congressional election, the potential PTO votes is increased by the number of PTO congressmen times 20.
- On non-congressional elections, last month's potential PTO votes number is preserved.
2) As mentioned before, Oct 5 2012 election is an aberration (Pfeiffer's POTUS run). Not all people listed under PTO were actual PTO supporters.

Analysis of Table 2:

As players old enough will remember, eUS has experienced an extremely long period of 100/100 bonuses. During this time, foreign players were willing to pay exorbitant amounts just to get eUS citizenship. Even congressmen who weren't affiliated with the current PTO group decided from time to time to approve citizenship requests that weren't approved by IES, in exchange of money, or political support.

If eUS still had 100/100 bonuses since September 2012, the PTOers would not only be able to attract supporters and use every single one of their citizenship approvals, they would even be able to charge money for it and make a profit.

However, since eUS has applied the strategy of having low bonuses, the PTOers had 2 problems:
1) They couldn't attract new supporters to the country even though they had more than enough citizenship approvals (in months prior to Sep 2012 this certainly wasn't the case)
2) They couldn't keep all their members in eUS since not all of their members were hardcore PTOers - they went to countries with better resources.

Have a good look at Column 5 and Column 8. They are called "Difference". When it's green, it means the PTOers couldn't use their approvals and attain their potential.

Those numbers are the success of the "Low Bonus Strategy". The graph will drive the point home:

- The blue line is the actual PTO percentage.
- The red line is the potential PTO percentage.
- The green line is the 50% line. Going above it means the PTOers win.

As you can see, if we hadn't conducted the low bonus strategy, the PTOers would have already become the majority around mid-November 2012, and they would have handily won the POTUS elections on Dec 2012.

Also, recall that in this analysis, I'm not even accounting for the additional congressional positions they would have acquired as a consequence of their increased percentage in the congressional elections. That graph would have looked even more terrible.

Long story short:

- The "Low Bonus Strategy" has succeeded in preventing a PTO victory.
- It wasn't enough by and of itself to beat the PTO.

So the Dirty Plufferist Elitists are the victor. But as one would expect, it is not sufficient by itself. There are some reasons as to why:

1) The PTOers are creating a lot of multiaccounts. The multiaccounts do not care about bonuses, obviously, so they are unaffected by the Low Bonus Strategy
2) The econ module of the game is virtually dead. Since the prices of everything is falling, and the gold influx into the economy has increased due to Q4 training centers + training contracts, production and wages are no longer significant compared to people's wealth. Hence the number of people who care about bonuses at all is decreasing.
3) The PTOers are actively recruiting hardcore PTOers from abroad. There were 7 articles in different countries just yesterday. Even my undercover agent Putri infiltrated AFA by using a false identity posing as an Indonesian recruit, which is telling something.

What should be done:

1) We should continue with the Low Bonus Strategy, which serves to contain the PTO threat.
2) We should work hard to find new allies who can help with our ATO efforts. Now that eUS is in a new alliance, the time is ripe to find new allies and friends outside eUS. Once we defeat the PTOers, we can regain 100/100 bonuses, and reclaim our rightful place as an eRep Superpower.

While I agree with the statement that the 10/10 bonus is essentially moot due to the current economic free fall many assumptions are unclear in the second table since it is in percentage form. These assumptions would be better clarified with real data along with some specific examples of AFAists shown "passing through" eUSA citizenship to validate your case that many 'fly-through' due to the low bonuses policy in place.

Additionally I fear that the percentage data for congressional elections may be inaccurate as you state that you've based the percentages upon T6 when only T5 is relevant in parliamentary elections. Speculation regarding where the graph could be if other bonus levels were maintained by eUSA is simply that, mere speculation.

TM: "many assumptions are unclear in the second table since it is in percentage form"

The only assumption is:

KE: "- Each congressmen gets around 20 citizenship approvals. So after each congressional election, the potential PTO votes is increased by the number of PTO congressmen times 20.
- On non-congressional elections, last month's potential PTO votes number is preserved."

TM: "These assumptions would be better clarified with real data along with some specific examples of AFAists shown "passing through" eUSA citizenship to validate your case that many 'fly-through' due to the low bonuses policy in place."

I have already spent 2 hours on this, so I didn't bother to present the data you mentioned; but you can ask DLS for the statistics he prepared. He has them for the months he was active.

TM: "Additionally I fear that the percentage data for congressional elections may be inaccurate as you state that you've based the percentages upon T6 when only T5 is relevant in parliamentary elections."

if you care so much, you should commission a real life professional to project this. Your numbers assume that 100% of people we let in stay long-term, and that none of our people die off or leave.... and you are also assuming that you would keep hemorrhaging people at even higher rates.....

Anyway, it is funny one of the ringleaders of the INCI PTO circus is calling us a PTO.

FYI, we have Congressmen who are native born Americans, EDEN supporters, COT supporters, TWO supporters, whatever, it is not really relevant to our mission here.

This is party for independent minded people.

When we do take over, the eUSA will have many friends and few enemies.

You seem to have neglected to mention the other parties, and the numbers they also lost during that same time frame. Could you include them also, otherwise it really shows nothing. All parties are losing ppl, total voting is down. This is not the ATO efforts, it is because the game is dead in parts. Let's see the "potential vs actual" for those parties also please. After all, if you claim that the lack of bonuses are creating this "containment", the other parties should not have been affected at all. The first part is good, but without the second part I mentioned above, it is a mute point. All data across the board needs to be analyzed the same. Focusing on one party doesn't show that the trend has actually hit all top5 parties. And the whole IES not allowing new ppl in is obviously also a mute point, as you stated the AFA didn't let new ppl in either. Or their approvals "went wasted".

"You seem to have neglected to mention the other parties, and the numbers they also lost during that same time frame. Could you include them also, otherwise it really shows nothing."

The point you mention affects only PP elections. It wouldn't influence the CP and Congress Elections numbers at all, since all votes in the country is accounted for in those. You could ignore all PP elections and the graphs and the trends wouldn't change one bit.

"All parties are losing ppl, total voting is down. This is not the ATO efforts, it is because the game is dead in parts. Let's see the "potential vs actual" for those parties also please."

Same answer.

"Focusing on one party doesn't show that the trend has actually hit all top5 parties."

I don't understand. My data is at the national level for CP and Congressional Elections, and T6 level for PP elections. And to claim the smallest percentage of the population can affect the huge trends I have exhibited here is just grasping for counter-arguments.

" And the whole IES not allowing new ppl in is obviously also a mute point, as you stated the AFA didn't let new ppl in either. Or their approvals "went wasted"."

Thank you for the clarification regarding T5 vs T6 however the assumption of 20 approvals (averaged) per congress member would require recently-sampled historical data (month on month) by senate seat to be averaged.

Additionally the line graph you've selected would be easier to read in bar graph form using shading to indicate potentiality based on your 20 cs approvals per senator in my opinion; otherwise each type of election would warrant individual month-by-month line graphs.

@rgr

It seems ironic to me that your persistent demagoguery negatively impacted your efforts against INCI by enticing many to recreate accounts born in the eUSA which you've also advocated in the past. I suppose birds 'of a feather' do indeed flock together.

This is a statistical nightmare from the beginning because there are way too many extra variables. And this analysis doesn't really prove anything outside of the ATO isn't effective.

Each election individually (congress, CP, PP) actually has a fairly strong growth profile for the PTO based on your percentages. It's not 100% clear how the PP data is taken either (how are PTO votes in non-PTO parties counted?).

If you want to prove the low bonus strategy actually worked you would need to:
1. Collect the data prior to Sep-12 and prove that there's a negative inflection point in each election type's numbers at the point of 10/10 loss.
2. Prove that the majority of those who left the USA and were PTOers did so because of the lack of resources by showing that they went to countries that had 10/10 stacks, not through normal attrition.

Otherwise you're just speculating here still.

And even if you prove that the low bonus strategy worked to inflect the PTO, it doesn't negate that it could have otherwise shot the eUS in the foot. You would need to show that it didn't accelerate population loss or other negative effects as well.

if doubts existed as to the truth of the numbers, here are dispelled.
pity is that many of the players behind these numbers, just follow what they say and ask them, no wonder the damage or harm that this poses to the country.
Above all, think of your head, and do not be lead by those who have done everything to take over the country, without regard to who or whom.

Kemal, no you didn't mention IES in your article, sorry, I was referencing a comment from some others who did in mine, about how we locked down allowing new ppl in to the country. So in affect only AfA had been letting ppl in. Which isn't factual, I checked. We have been letting ppl in regularly. Sorry if that part confused you.
As for your graph, I am trying to figure out where you pulled this "potential vote" number from, because it isn't total votes, nor is it total members of AFA. Could you clarify that point? To me "potential votes" would still be a true number, being pulled from using the AFA members total, or some other number. These have no correlation to anything.

"This is a statistical nightmare from the beginning because there are way too many extra variables. And this analysis doesn't really prove anything outside of the ATO isn't effective."

Wrong.

"Each election individually (congress, CP, PP) actually has a fairly strong growth profile for the PTO based on your percentages."

They have a growth profile. Strong? I don't think so.

"It's not 100% clear how the PP data is taken either (how are PTO votes in non-PTO parties counted?)."

I have checked each of T6, and also accounted for different PTO candidates running simultaneously. For instance, all the votes for the three PTO candidates in AFA, USWP and iNCi are counted this month. I don't do half-assed jobs.

"If you want to prove the low bonus strategy actually worked you would need to:
1. Collect the data prior to Sep-12 and prove that there's a negative inflection point in each election type's numbers at the point of 10/10 loss."

Wrong. Data prior to September 2012 cannot be used for various reasons, the most important one being that there weren't dedicated PTO parties prior to that date in T5. The PTO candidates were run through T5 parties with bad PPs/ineffective blockers. Even the congressional election system was different.

"2. Prove that the majority of those who left the USA and were PTOers did so because of the lack of resources by showing that they went to countries that had 10/10 stacks, not through normal attrition."

Wrong. I just need to show what they could have accomplished by the game mechanics, but couldn't because the people simply didn't want to come here.

"And even if you prove that the low bonus strategy worked to inflect the PTO, it doesn't negate that it could have otherwise shot the eUS in the foot. You would need to show that it didn't accelerate population loss or other negative effects as well."

It did accelerate population loss for non-PTO foreigners as well. The point is: We would have been overrun, but wasn't.

"1) The PTOers are creating a lot of multiaccounts. The multiaccounts do not care about bonuses, obviously, so they are unaffected by the Low Bonus Strategy"

"1) We should continue with the Low Bonus Strategy, which serves to contain the PTO threat."

you fail to explain why you think the PTO is being controled by the so called "succesful" low bonus strategy. Maybe it´s because you chose the allies the PTOs wanted or any other reason.

" We should work hard to find new allies who can help with our ATO efforts. Now that eUS is in a new alliance, the time is ripe to find new allies and friends outside eUS. "
eusa is already in a new alliance. why should we want another alliance? unless you think COT has something to do with the PTOs.However, this article doesn´t have any proof of that.

It seems you have not actually comprehended what I have written. I meant finding friends in CoT... As for how I claim it controls, if not defeats the PTO, re-read the part on the effect of low bonuses on recruitment and retention rates for the PTO.

You're taking credit for the peoples effort. I've been on IRC Forums and written hundreds of letter.
You take credit from people like Putri. Then credit your own austerity program.
Give me liberty or give me death. (Then, let me know how you kill people, in this game.

The reason the server hasn't crashed; It's because I came up with something cleaver to say. (See, now I've done it.)

You failed to demonstrate to me a process at arriving at your figures that does not involve bones being thrown or feathers being shaken. It leaves the nagging suspicion of figures being pulled out of bottoms instead.

Your answers to people like jankems also very unsatisfactory.
In conclusion: If I paid for this paper I'd be demanding a refund at this point.

"You failed to demonstrate to me a process at arriving at your figures that does not involve bones being thrown or feathers being shaken. "

The first table contains only raw data, the second one contains assumptions clearly stated and further clarified in the comments. If you are still not convinced, you are not a person data + reason can convince.

Ok, so your saying their "potential votes" for January are almost equal to the total votes that were cast in the elections. Obviously you can't use the number and get any form of accurate result. So "potential votes" is flawed, and needs to be reworked. Let's at least be as accurate as possible here, and not deal with fantasy numbers. Reality in numbers, not potentials.

Additional graphs have revealed an error in table two incorrectly asserting potential threat growth as instantaneous rather than gradual. Perhaps growth in potential threat should be eliminated in PP elections as there are too many human variables which prevent accurate graphic representation.

Also in the additional graphs shouldn't the red+blue bars always add to 100% of votes cast?

You do not seem to understand the flow of the logic. Game mechanics put a limit on how many recruits AFA can have from abroad, and how many of their existing members they can reatain.

The recruits from abroad have a decision problem. The decision is between staying in their country or immigrating to eUS and helping the PTO. If eUS had 100/100 bonuses, it would have created sufficient incentive for most of the players to come, which would have resulted in the utilization of all citizen approvals of AFA.

The other decision problem is that of the existing members of the PTOers. They decide between staying in the eUS and supporting the PTO, and moving abroad. If the bonuses here were at par with, or better than the outside optins they had, they would have had no economic reason to move abroad.

Both of these decision problems hinge on the relative bonuses of eUS vis-a-vis foreign countries. Both recruitment and retention of the PTOers are negatively affected by low bonuses.

Hence it makes sense to look at the difference between the potential votes implied by game mechanics and the actual outcome obtained because of the proper economic incentives.

@TM

PP elections data is the most interesting one, since AFA has always under-utilized its resources, and chose wrong strategies in that arena. However I don't want to give them tips here. They under-perform in PP elections. Strange if you ask me, but fortunate. Perhaps they don't care as much to have 2 T5 parties.

"Also in the additional graphs shouldn't the red+blue bars always add to 100% of votes cast?"

No, it is just the actual and potential percentages side to side. Actual/Total & Potential/Total*

"The first table contains only raw data, the second one contains assumptions clearly stated and further clarified in the comments. If you are still not convinced, you are not a person data + reason can convince." No. it means we are not person data+assumptions/hypothesis can convince. A lot of people say the low bonus strategy is a success but nobody can really explain with facts why it is that strategy the true and only reason why the PTO has changed in some sort of way than can be considered as a success.

"1. Collect the data prior to Sep-12 and prove that there's a negative inflection point in each election type's numbers at the point of 10/10 loss."

A comprehensive analysis of accepted CS during the past year or more with retroactive identification knowledge at your disposal could certainly demonstrate long-term trends in PTO growth, which could be used to estimate total population size in combination with information from elections.

This could mightily reinforce the assumption that there exists an _excess_ external population that flows according to national bonuses.

Your data and conclusions presented above are certainly convincing, but by no means unimpeachable.

"No. it means we are not person data+assumptions/hypothesis can convince. A lot of people say the low bonus strategy is a success but nobody can really explain with facts why it is that strategy the true and only reason why the PTO has changed in some sort of way than can be considered as a success."

If I am not able to conduct experiments on how the counter-factual could have worked out, how do you expect to make any analysis without any theory, given that history has a single time series?

You are either about to revolutionize social sciences and time series analysis, or don't really know what you want.

Whether they were in a PTO party or not is irrelevant, they were still PTO votes.

"I just need to show what they could have accomplished by the game mechanics, but couldn't because the people simply didn't want to come here."
If you want to show that the loss of bonuses caused the drop, then you have to show THAT. Maybe they didn't come here because of internal political strife in the PTO org. Your data shows absolutely nothing about the impact of losing bonuses unless you can prove in some way that the loss of bonuses *specifically* did this.

"It did accelerate population loss for non-PTO foreigners as well."
Proof? You say nothing about what it did to the native population either, which would hopefully be the concern.

You are reading an article written by a citizen of eRepublik, an immersive multiplayer strategy game based on real life countries. Create your own character and help your country achieve its glory while establishing yourself as a war hero, renowned publisher or finance guru.